Pitino's Buyout Drops to Zero

[builtbadgers]

People can call it whatever they want. Coyle made it clear that Pitino could not coach here if he wanted. Pitino said he was let go. In our firm we have always used the term let go as a nicer way of saying your fired. Pitino was a failure here.

 

[Ope3]

Everyone is wrong. Pitino opened up a Taco Stand in Albuquerque and is doing a Juicy Lucy/Carne Asada Fusion Burrito

With some green chili, I am down for that. Big time.

 

[Ope3]

Ohhh, this deservers another thread. For a chain fish taco, Rubios is very solid/good.

Rubio's is great, but as far as chain's in SoCal, I am more partial to Wahoo's for fish tacos.

 

[MplsGopher]

it only applies if the Coach terminates the contract (ie, leaves on his own free will before being fired or the contract expiration). Here, the University terminated the contract, not the Coach

This is restating the same thing you've already said over and over in different words.

You're just assuming the thing that you want to be true, to be true. You haven't actually proven it.


Again ---- Coyle and Pitino worked out a deal.

It allowed it to be that Pitino decided to leave the U for New Mexico and did not have to pay the $500k he would normally have owed for doing that, in exchange for the U not having to pay him the buyout.


It's really not that hard, man.

 

[Marooned]

This is restating the same thing you've already said over and over in different words.

You're just assuming the thing that you want to be true, to be true. You haven't actually proven it.


Again ---- Coyle and Pitino worked out a deal.

It allowed it to be that Pitino decided to leave the U for New Mexico and did not have to pay the $500k he would normally have owed for doing that, in exchange for the U not having to pay him the buyout.


It's really not that hard, man.

OMG. You are so wrong it's sad, LOL!
Go back to the article. Read the first sentence of the second paragraph. I'll also copy and paste it for you.

The university fired Pitino on March 15, one day before he accepted a position as New Mexico's coach.

Read that sentence. Then read it again. Then perhaps again. If it doesn't make sense, ask someone to help explain it.

 

[MplsGopher]

Read the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Please cite where it says this in the official release.

Good reason you can't.

 

[Marooned]

We've been over this already. But, I get it. You're one of those "I'm never wrong #iamsosmart" types. Good on you, man.

 

[MplsGopher]

We've been over this already.

Nope. You dodged this, because it defeats your argument.

You can't prove the scenario I laid out is false. Of course, that alone doesn't prove it did happen like that. I could easily be wrong about my guess of how it went down.

But until it is actually proven, it's the scenario I'm going with, based on the STrib article saying it.

 

[Marooned]

I didn't dodge it. Coyle literally said in his statement "I recently met with Richard and told him that we were moving in a different direction." Through every objective measure, that language would be identified as being synonymous with being fired. In fact, pretty common knowledge to use language like that to not seem overly harsh and also to prevent litigation down the road. The point remains, the U fired Pitino, and used "we're moving in a different direction" to convey that message.

You can't prove the scenario I laid out is false.

Yes, I can. And did. With the actual contract, Coyle's statement, and numerous articles. But, I see that facts mean very little to you here.

it's the scenario I'm going with, based on the STrib article saying it.

The same strib article said Pitino was fired. But, if you want to cherry pick the contents of that article and use the "separation agreement" that you haven't read as some sort of "proof" that Pitino wasn't fired, I don't know what to tell you other than logic isn't your strong suit.

 

[MplsGopher]

All that matters is that the deal that Coyle and Pitino made allowed Pitino to make it look like he left, under the conditions I explained.

You haven’t disproven this. You just say the same things over and over, which don’t disprove it.

 

[Marooned]

All that matters is that the deal that Coyle and Pitino made allowed Pitino to make it look like he left, under the conditions I explained.

If this were true, the article wouldn't have mentioned that he was fired. The article did say he was fired, therefore this part of your comment is wrong.

You haven’t disproven this. You just say the same things over and over, which don’t disprove it.

I've provided, you know, actual legal documents detailing how the termination of employment actually works (doubt you read it, you don't seem interested in the facts). You, on the other hand, haven't actually provided a single fact suggesting he wasn't fired. The only thing you've said is that your version of events is "the scenario I'm going with".

 

[nitramnaed]

 

[Marooned]

Here's one last nugget.

Coyle, at around the 20 second mark:
"He's going to be the coach at New Mexico. We learned that earlier today"

Coyle, when asked about the timeline of events at around the 1:50 mark:
"We started to talk last Friday when we got back from Indianapolis... and yesterday, of course, and that's when we made the decision, last night, that we shared with all of you".

So, let's recap the timeline, directly from the source. Coyle started having the conversation with Pitino on March 12 about his future. He officially decided on March 15 that they were parting ways. Coyle then finds out on March 16 that Pitino was taking the NM job.

What are your facts to back up your assertions again?

 

[MplsGopher]

If this were true, the article wouldn't have mentioned that he was fired.

This is the heart of why you're wrong.

You can't get past this false assertion that if he was fired, he therefore was contractually terminated, and whatever it said in the contract is the bottom line that can never be altered.


But that's not how it went done. On purpose.

If he really had been fired, he would not have finished out the year. Conroy would have.


As the OP said, they came up with a new deal specifically for his departure.

That's what I've been referencing, the whole time.

Doesn't seem like you're capable of wrapping your head around this point. You just drone on and on and on about firing.

 

[Marooned]

But that's not how it went done. On purpose. But I have absolutely no facts to back this up.

FIFY

If he really had been fired, he would not have finished out the year. Conroy would have.

He was fired after the season had concluded. Check the dates.

As the OP said, they came up with a new dealspecifically for his departure.

The OP discusses a separation agreement, which is very common when terminating a contract. There’s no evidence that there was any new deal brokered other than to confirm everything that the original contract stated would happen at termination.

You just drone on and on and on with facts about firing.

FIFY

 

[MplsGopher]

There’s no evidence that there was any new deal brokered other than to confirm everything that the original contract stated would happen at termination.

That’s what you want to be the case, but aren’t able to prove. You’re just assuming it to be true.

Finally catching on.


STrib article would not have mentioned the $500k at all (as you even noted it would be odd to mention if it didn’t apply) if that wasn’t part of the new separation deal.

 

[Marooned]

That’s what you want to be the case, but aren’t able to prove. You’re just assuming it to be true.

Nah. I’m fine with the proof I’ve provided. Conversely you’ve provided no proof at all of anything backing up your assertion. I’m not the one making large assumptions here.

STrib article would not have mentioned the $500k at all (as you even noted it would be odd to mention if it didn’t apply) if that wasn’t part of the new separation deal.

The strib wouldn’t have mentioned he was fired if he wasn’t fired.

 

[MplsGopher]

The strib wouldn’t have mentioned he was fired if he wasn’t fired.

Being fired doesn’t disprove they made a new deal for his separation.

You can’t disprove it.

 

[Marooned]

Being fired doesn’t disprove they made a new deal for his separation.

You can’t disprove it.

That was never my assertion. Of course they can change the terms after the fact. My assertion was and always has been that he was fired.

 

[builtbadgers]

That was never my assertion. Of course they can change the terms after the fact. My assertion was and always has been that he was fired.

His father told his golf buddies that Richard was fired. Suppose people can call it whatever they want. He was told he would not be the coach her any longer. Believe me, he wanted to keep the job in the worst way.

 

[Unregistered User]

You're just assuming the thing that you want to be true, to be true. You haven't actually proven it.

Wow. The king of throwing sh*t against the wall wrote that.

It's really not that hard, man.

Not the first time you’ve heard that today, right?

 

[MplsGopher]

That was never my assertion. Of course they can change the terms after the fact. My assertion was and always has been that he was fired.

I guess this is as close to a concession as I'll get out of you, so I'll take it.

My point has never been to disprove the idea that Coyle (and whomever else was included in that decision making process) decided to move on from Pitino. This is known, and not up for debate, and never was being debated.

My point has only ever been -- as confirmed by the OP article -- that Coyle and Pitino worked out a (new) deal for Pitino's separation which allowed it to appear "on paper" as if Richard was leaving the school for NM and didn't have to pay the usual penalty for doing so, in exchange for not getting paid any of the buyout.


Every post I've made in this thread has been in that vein.

 

[MplsGopher]

Not the first time you’ve heard that today, right?

Heyyyoooo, UU making penis jokes!

They teach you that one at OLG or St Pats, when you were sitting next to the Carroll's ?

 

[Marooned]

I guess this is as close to a concession as I'll get out of you, so I'll take it.

My point has never been to disprove the idea that Coyle (and whomever else was included in that decision making process) decided to move on from Pitino. This is known, and not up for debate, and never was being debated.

My point has only ever been -- as confirmed by the OP article -- that Coyle and Pitino worked out a (new) deal for Pitino's separation which allowed it to appear "on paper" as if Richard was leaving the school for NM and didn't have to pay the usual penalty for doing so, in exchange for not getting paid any of the buyout.


Every post I've made in this thread has been in that vein.

And just about everything you stated here is false.

Let's take my first statement - "Pitino was fired". First, it's been reported as fact that he was "fired" in every news source that has mentioned it. If it were clickbait, as you claim, they would've mentioned it in a vague and ambiguous terms so that it wasn't clear. No, the articles all clearly say he was fired.

Now, unlike message boards, publications like ESPN, SI, StarTribune, Pioneer Press, USA Today, etc - they fall under defamation laws. Let's say, for example, that your assertion is true, that "on paper" Pitino left the school for NM and wasn't "on paper" fired. All of those publications previously mentioned would not have directly used the term "fired" - otherwise they'd be exposing themselves from lawsuits that would be a slam dunk if, as you say, that "on paper" Pitino left the school and wasn't fired. Trust me, the editorial board had access to all the documents and the editorial process would've been thorough before being so reckless as to publish an article saying he was fired if he wasn't. Your scenario here is extremely illogical.

Are you following this so far?

If not, that's ok - prior attempts at rationalizing your viewpoint have been laughable to the point that I wouldn't be shocked this is a concept you're unable to grasp. It's very clear that reason and logic aren't your strong suits.

With all that said, there's overwhelming proof he was fired. Otherwise, where are the defamation lawsuits that would've been filed in the courts by now? Find me one. Or find me the text of this separation agreement that showcases your version of events. I'll be keeping an eye out, but I know you can't. I've provided enough proof to show he was fired, you have provided zero proof he wasn't.

With the assertion that he was fired, he therefore wouldn't have been subject to the $500k termination fee had he severed the contract by leaving for another school as provided in the original contract. If he were fired, he wouldn't owe the U a dime per the contract. You are unable to disprove this.

With those two facts, now comes the kicker. This "new deal" says that Pitino owes the U nothing. The contract I pointed to would also show that Pitino would owe nothing based on how events unfolded. Therefore, this "new deal" didn't actually change anything about Pitino's termination fee. The only revelation from the article was that his NM job was enough of a similar job to eliminate the U's payout obligation to Pitino.

Carry on, little bird.

 

[MplsGopher]

All of those publications previously mentioned would not have directly used the term "fired" - otherwise they'd be exposing themselves from lawsuits that would be a slam dunk if, as you say, that "on paper" Pitino left the school and wasn't fired.

LOL

Yep, I'm sure Pitino's lawyer is gearing up for some big lawsuits against ESPN because they said he was fired, even though the University's official release doesn't say that. Unleash the Kraken!!

With all that said, there's overwhelming proof he was fired.

Nobody ever claimed that Pitino didn't want to stay. Was never an argument.

Therefore, this "new deal" didn't actually change anything about Pitino's termination fee.

Nope, you're as wrong now as you've ever been.

You're just repeating the same wrong argument over and over again. You haven't brought anything new to the table since the first page of this thread.


It is quite amazing to me that you're not able to comprehend that Coyle and Pitino worked out a deal on how the separation would go down, and that the details of that deal were accurately reported in the OP article.


Some pretty incredible mental gymnastics you've gone through just because you so desperately want me to be wrong, and you care about nothing else.

 

[Marooned]

Yep, I'm sure Pitino's lawyer is gearing up for some big lawsuits

If your version of events were true, they would be.

You keep on harping on these series of events that you have absolute no proof of. You so desperately want to be right here you’re going unhinged.

 

[MplsGopher]

If your version of events were true, they would be.

Lol no. You have no idea how lawsuits work, if that's what you think.

 

[MplsGopher]

HINT:

Both of these things can absolutely be true at the same time:

- Pitino very much knows he was fired and that the media isn't "wrong" to say he was fired, even though they tried to play it off that he wasn't, so he doesn't care one iota that they said that

- Coyle and Pitino worked out a deal on his separation where .... X,Y,Z

 

[Marooned]

HINT:

Both of these things can absolutely be true at the same time:

- Pitino very much knows he was fired and that the media isn't "wrong" to say he was fired, even though they tried to play it off that he wasn't, so he doesn't care one iota that they said that

- Coyle and Pitino worked out a deal on his separation where .... X,Y,Z

The Strib wouldn’t publish that Pitino was fired if he weren’t legally fired. You’re really grasping at something with no evidence to back it up. I’ll take the word of all the editors and lawyers that reviewed all the articles prior to publication over some blowhard on an internet forum that has failed to provide a single fact supporting their claim to the contrary.

 

[tjgopher]

He could have chosen to bide his time and make the U pay him out every last dollar of the $1.75 he was owed.

Sure, he could have chosen to bide his time and had the U pay him the $1.75m he was owed. But, in doing so, he would have had to sit out three years from being hired as a coach and taken his $1.75m in mutually agreed-upon installments over the three years remaining on his deal. So, that roughly translates into $580k per year. Doubtful he would decide to sit out three years and even more doubtful he would leave a New Mexico job offer of $800K+/year to take $580k/yr from the U. The Gopher/Pitino contract specifically says if he gets another job, the U does not have to pay him the buyout. If he doesn't get another job, then the U pays him the $1.75m in equal installments over the course of the remaining years of the deal (in this case three years). That is why if you check the history of my posts, I continued to say the $1.75m buyout was moot, and of course, that proved to be correct.

he also doesn't have to pay the $500k he would owe for taking another job prior to April 30.

The only way Pitino would have to pay the $500k is if he chose to leave for a job while still being employed by the U. He didn't and wasn't. You simply fail to understand the basic premise of a contract, or you're intentionally being obtuse. The Gophers were NEVER going to get $500k from Pitino because Pitino was NEVER going to leave voluntarily. It is that simple. The contract spelled it out. There was no need for Coyle and Pitino to negotiate anything, other than some sort of softer "wording" that would make it sound better than Pitino was fired (which he was). But, financially, the contract language was clear. He gets nothing from the U if he gets a new job. Doesn't take any negotiation to settle that. He only gives the U $500k if he leaves on his own for a new job. He didn't. Nothing to negotiate that.